Common Sense Rules

Of the many tools that I use when I work with organizations, one of my favorites is the Organizational Climate Survey (OSC), published by the Hay Group. It measures organizational effectiveness on six dimensions that consistently demonstrate the greatest direct impact on individual and work unit performance. It is also something many leaders directly impact.

One of these dimensions is called "Flexibility". As defined in the OCS Technical Manual, the flexibility dimension measures "perceived constraints in the workplace and the amount of red tape - particularly unnecessary red tape-in the organization." Flexibility in this context refers to rules, policies or procedures and the degree to which the organization is willing to stay open to the most efficient and practical way of getting things done and how adaptive rules, policies and procedures are to new circumstances in light of change.

You are expecting an example and I have several. Most client organizations have policies about who gets an office and who gets a "work station". I use this example because it is fairly universal to organizational life- but any policy may apply. One organization made a policy that work station size would be determined by position level regardless of requirements of the job. When the company moved to its new location, a designer in the organization found his work station to be the smallest available. He was upset and raised the issue to his boss. His boss discussed the issue with corporate HR and they confirmed that this was the work station available to someone in the designer's grade level. The designer made the case that his position required all sorts of samples, pictures and material workbooks. He was crammed into the tiny space and very upset about the situation. He is considered a high performer by his boss and peers. He is now looking for a new job.

Of course all this might seem petty at a certain level. Experience tells me it's not. My interest is in how this rule is impacting the productivity of this individual and countless others who have been given the smallest work spaces. It seems like the company was thoughtful and fair on one level. On another level, in light of certain positions, it is perceived as an unnecessary constraint. This employee isn't asking for more money, or demanding a higher level position. He wants a work space that supports his work. This is in line with what the Gallup organization found in their 1998 survey. One of their key 12 indicators impacting productivity, profit, turnover and customers service is "I have the materials and equipment to do my job properly." I am curious about the cost of this (or any) rule to the productivity and profit of the organization. I wonder would the one time cost of providing a larger work space for all employees offset the impact of the current situation to employee profit and productivity?

In another client organization the decision was made to give offices to officers of the organizations (a small number of top leaders) and the same size work stations to all other employees. When they moved into the new building a few years ago, the memo went out about the decision regarding limiting offices to allow the maximum amount of natural light on all floors. The building is full of light and space and offices take up a very small portion of each floor. The work stations are spacious and comfortable and all the same. Occasionally I hear high level leaders talk about looking forward to becoming an officer so they can have an office. But I haven't heard a complaint amongst anyone else. The difference in impact of this policy is tangible. No one knows the level and salary of anyone based upon the size of their work station. They just know they are not officers in the organization. This rule seems to work and not cause unnecessary constraints or impact to productivity.

Tonight on CEO Exchange on public television I heard Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel, mention the highly collaborative nature of the work at Intel and the way their office is designed to support this. He told the interviewer that for this reason they have a very open office environment and all employees have work stations including him. I am struck by Intel's perspective compared to the first example I use. Sometimes I am puzzled; why it is so difficult for some companies to just do what works? Be it ego, or power, or lack of imagination, it doesn't really matter. How an organization's rules and policies support productivity or detract from it can be measured. We now know that stupid rules are linked with lower business performance.

Flexibility seems particularly important in light of the amount of change many of my clients are experiencing. The point is get any unnecessary rules out of the way. If you can, make rules that make sense, communicate why they make sense and be flexible. If you find yourself having trouble explaining them in a way that is practical and easy to understand, question the rule, policy or procedure.

For organizations, common sense rules rule.